AI will cause senior developers to become 10 times more effective.
AI will cause junior developers to become 10 times less effective. And that's when taking into account the lost productivity of the senior developers who need to review their code.
Unfortunately for the writer, he will probably get fired because of AI. But not because AI will replace him - because seniors will.
Very brave to have an edgy opinion based on vibes that is counter to the only actual study though. Claiming that things are XYZ just because it feels like it is all the rage nowadays, good for being with the times.
> Unfortunately for the writer, he will probably get fired because of AI. But not because AI will replace him - because seniors will
Here is another prediction for you. In the current real world LLMs create mountains of barely working slop on a clean project, and slowly pollute it with trash feature after feature. The LGTM senior developers will just keep merging and merging until the project becomes such a tangled mess that the LLM takes billion tokens to fix it or it outright can't, and these so called senior developers had their skills deteriorate to such an extent that they'd need to call the author of the article to save them from the mess they created with their fancy autocomplete.
Here’s a breakdown of the *key structural changes*, and an analysis of *potential risks or concerns*:
---
## *What Has Changed*
### 1. *OpenAI’s For-Profit Arm is Becoming a Public Benefit Corporation (PBC)*
* *Before:* OpenAI LP (limited partnership with a “capped-profit” model).
* *After:* OpenAI LP becomes a *Public Benefit Corporation* (PBC).
*Implications:*
* A PBC is still a *for-profit* entity, but legally required to balance shareholder value with a declared public mission.
* OpenAI’s mission (“AGI that benefits all humanity”) becomes part of the legal charter of the new PBC.
---
### 2. *The Nonprofit Remains in Control and Gains Equity*
* The *original OpenAI nonprofit* will *continue to control* the new PBC and will now also *hold equity* in it.
* The nonprofit will use this equity stake to fund “mission-aligned” initiatives in areas like health, education, etc.
*Implications:*
* This strengthens the nonprofit’s influence and potentially its resources.
* But the balance between nonprofit oversight and for-profit ambition becomes more delicate as stakes rise.
---
### 3. *Elimination of the “Capped-Profit” Structure*
* The old “capped-return” model (investors could only make \~100x on investments) is being dropped.
* Instead, OpenAI will now have a *“normal capital structure”* where everyone holds unrestricted equity.
*Implications:*
* This likely makes OpenAI more attractive to investors.
* However, it also increases the *incentive to prioritize commercial growth*, which could conflict with mission-first priorities.
---
## *Potential Negative Implications*
### 1. *Increased Commercial Pressure*
* Moving from a capped-profit model to unrestricted equity introduces *stronger financial incentives*.
* This could push the company toward *more aggressive monetization*, potentially compromising safety, openness, or alignment goals.
### 2. *Accountability Trade-offs*
* While the nonprofit “controls” the PBC, actual accountability and oversight may be limited if the nonprofit and PBC leadership overlap (as has been a concern before).
* Past board turmoil in late 2023 (Altman's temporary ousting) highlighted how difficult it is to hold leadership accountable under complex structures.
### 3. *Risk of “Mission Drift”*
* Over time, with more funding and commercial scale, *stakeholder interests* (e.g., major investors or partners like Microsoft) might influence product and policy decisions.
* Even with the mission enshrined in a PBC charter, *profit-driven pressures could subtly shape choices*—especially around safety disclosures, model releases, or regulatory lobbying.
---
## *What Remains the Same (According to the Letter)*
* OpenAI’s *mission* stays unchanged.
* The *nonprofit retains formal control*.
* There’s a stated commitment to safety, open access, and democratic use of AI.
You missed the part where OpenAI the nonprofit gives away the value that’s between capped profit PPUs and unlimited profit equity shares, enriching current PPUs at the expense of the nonprofit. Surely, this is illegal.
Come on. This is a "mongo web scale" type of article.
CPU bound applications MUST use multithreading to be able to utilize multiple cores. In many cases, the framework knows how to give an API to the developer which masks the need for him to deal with setting up a worker thread pool, such as with web applications frameworks - but eventually you need one.
Learn how to be an engineer, and use the right solution for the problem.
Probably from ads. I just wonder whether those 10k are coming from learn python alone or all 'learn' websites combined. I'm actually developing a Codecademy 'clone' for Brazil and have looked at these sites for reference.
That's super nice, mate! I love teaching and am building a website to teach programming myself. Now, if its ok for you to disclose, how do you manage the evaluation/testing of user submitted code in the backend? Thanks and congratS!
That's a fundamentally different situations. YouTube clients are for consumption only, meaning there's no value to YouTube in them and only revenue loss in terms of adverts not being shown. YouTube however does nothing to prevent content creators from using third party tools for creating, editing, uploading, and organising their videos. They'd be crazy too.
Twitter users are a mix of passive consumers and active content creators and the most prolific and high value content creators tend to use third party clients and platforms. Seeing as though those people are the entire reason you have all those returning eyeballs on Twitter for advertisers to monetise in the first place you really want to do everything you can to make their experience as best as it can be.
On top of that, the proportion of Twitter's user base that were using apps like Tweetbot or Twitterrific is by all accounts minuscule, so the impact on overall advertising revenue can't be huge. And given how many of those users appear to have been prolific tweeters whose content attracts others to the platform I'd say it's more than offset. There are also media reports that Tweetbot and Twitterrific had to pay for some API V2.0 features.
There's no way this decision went through a proper business case analysis and was modelled for its impact on revenues. I'm guessing it's just Musk being capricious as usual and having nobody able to push back.
The big affected third-party clients would gladly have incorporated the ads into the timeline, if only twitter actually included them in the api response.
Or they could have made a promoted tweets api and mandated in their terms of service that third party clients showing a timeline must include promoted tweets every now and then.
> As much as it sucks, YouTube has the same clause and it makes a lot of sense for companies who monetize on ads.
I wonder why we couldn't just get something like: "If you create a third party UI, you must include the following ad web component in the interface: https://github.com/... and the supporting mechanisms for that (user ID/cookies/whatever)"
But instead, many companies attempt to disallow third party clients and any reverse engineering in general, whereas the few that do allow it don't think about the possibility of monetization in third party clients (legally enforced), or just have to deal with such configurations not being supported.
And if the current ad technology doesn't work that way, then what prevent us from making it work that way? Why should the party that displays an ad always be the same one that's benefiting from it financially? Why couldn't I have some third party UI for a popular site that solves my personal gripes with the UI, while still showing ads on the behalf of that company that owns the original platform, so I don't get my socks sued off of me?
The biggest reason is that there's value in owning the user experience. Before streaming video took over, cable providers tried to put TiVo out of business by offering their own (crappier) DVR products and gating TiVo and DIY products like MythTV behind a flaky, poorly-supported product called CableCARD.
If you own the user experience, you can push users into _your_ most profitable offerings. And it works shockingly well.
reply